The new headline, "Obama Camp Turns to Clinton to Counter Palin," flips the image. It's not Obama, but the Obama camp -- a large, faceless group -- and now it's not a large, faceless group of women, but one particular woman, Hillary. Don't pin anything directly on Obama, and don't disrespect women by portraying them as nonindividuals.

And so suddenly, Hillary is the anti-Palin.

Hillary Is... the Palinator.

[ADDED: The image above, pointed to in the comments by Palladian, after I said: Kisses to the reader who Photoshops an image for that. Also, in the comments, was Ruth Anne's invitation: "And while you're photoshopping: Put a buff Sarah Connor body under the Sarah Palin face. No, wait. She's already done that herself."]

With the McCain-Palin team courting undecided female voters, including some who backed Mrs. Clinton in the Democratic primaries, Obama aides said they were counting on not only Mrs. Clinton but also Democratic female governors to rebut Ms. Palin — and, by extension, Mr. McCain. Those governors include Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.

Another poll:

Which headline was more accurate, and why did the NYT switch to the second headline?

The first. Changed because it was unfriendly to Obama.

The first. And websites change these things to add excitement or to balance with other headlines.

The second. Changed for accuracy.

The second. But websites just vary the headlines for excitement or balance.

How pathetic will that look? Even assume Hillary makes a good showing - especially assuming that - it makes Team Obama look all the more like sexist tools. No Hillary, we're not going to let you near any of the real levers of power, but we'll haul you out to take care of the mortal threat to our campaign anyway. After you're done with that task, get back out of the public eye and go iron our shirts.

It's self-defeating. If they were smart, they'd ignore Palin. But if they were smart, they'd have made Hillary VP. The Democrats are such titanic losers - it is not possible to hold a better hand going into an election as the one they have now, and yet here they are starting the death spiral.

It's all futile anyway, the idiot mob of the nutroots are on the loose and there's nothing that can be done to get them back under control.

I am experiencing levels of schadenfreude here I never thought possible.

It is truly hard to believe the change that this woman has made to the entire election scenario, just by being selected, appearing at one introduction event, and making one convention speech (plus, of course, her experience, which is ok, but certainly not vast or international).

She has sparked the Repub's out of the doldrums, energized their party, and driven the media and Dem's batshit crazy - I mean they've lost their minds over her. Go look at the articles and comments at THE NEW YORK TIMES - the vitriol is just ... remarkable.

The Obama "camp" is careening around trying to figure out what to do about little Sarah Palin, who 98% of all Americans never heard of one week ago.

Did the story change too, or just the headline? Having read the story, I'm not quite sure which headlins is most appropos. Certainly the second one, with the added to Counter Palin, is more descriptive.

It's easy to claim the NYT changed the headline because it sounded unfriendly to Obama.

But come on, that first headline is lousy. "Female Surrogates" is a ridiculous phrase. Whoever wrote it should have the wrath of KOS upon his or her head.

I do find it ironic that the unfortunate phrase in the former headline reappears in the first paragraph of the article (by PATRICK HEALY and JEFF ZELENY, btw).

I then read that Clinton is being dispatched to counter the "fresh burst of energy that Ms. Palin injected into the race."

Could this be satire? Let's dispatch Hillary Clinton, the professional damp blanket.

But further down, comforting reality asserts itself as we hear the metal on metal rasp of the Clinton machine:

Advisers to Mrs. Clinton said that she stood ready to help the Obama-Biden ticket, but they urged the campaign not to overestimate the impact Mrs. Clinton could have, noting that she had other commitments this fall, like campaigning and raising money for Senate candidates.

I like "Stepford Feminists" in honor of all the radical Left women that assailed Packwood, Thomas, Tower, and sent a wave of PC fear throughout the nation in the early 90s, only to turn on a dime when it was "indispensible friend to feminists" Bill Clinton accused of sex crimes.

"Aways believe the woman accuser, because they have no reason to ever lie about rape or harassment!!" - became a new NYC/San Fran feminist battlecry setting up the new aproved Stalinist Party line:

"Those lying white trailer trash Bimbos!" and Steinham's famous no-nevermind on what was a permissable number of boobie honks and ass squeezes a man could do freely before "it was clear his advances were unwelcome".

It would be sweet if they send out the #1 Woman who has made lemonade from the lemons of "victimization" - Hillary. One more time into the fire. First to preserve her power by enabling her husbands infidelity and trashing the "bimbo whores" in public...Now to preserve her power in the Democratic party by riding forth once again to defend the folks in the media and Team Axelrod that also treated her like an unattractive discardable old bitch until they "need her! they need her!" Certainly not for VP, but to battle those incorrect-thinking bimbos like Cindy McCain and Sarah Palin.

Call them fembots. I like Stepford feminists because I once lived in the same town as author Ira Levin, Stamford CT, and not only saw his living examples of the then-older Stepford wives, but their daughters, the Stepford feminists.

Born in privilege or learning an elitist mentality at "the right schools" like Smith, Brandeis, Yale. Dripping wealth, hair done just so, fashions the latest. But simultaneously power-thirsty and with the sense of entitlement from being aggrieved victims..Different from their status-hungry but complacent Stepford Moms.

"Obama to Dispatch Female Surrogates" -- that NYT headline I flagged last night -- is now: "Obama Camp Turns to Clinton to Counter Palin." As newspapers, the former purveyors of truth, turn into political organs, expect them to become prone to Kinsley gaffes:

It describes the situation when a politician says something inadvertently in public which he or she privately believes to be true, but which he or she would ordinarily refrain from saying publicly since he or she believes the statement would be politically harmful or damaging.

It will be hard to judge these things until some polling is done, but it seems to me that Palin appeals to an entirely different group of independent women than Hillary. So my instincts (for whatever they are worth) tell me that Hillary will not be an effective anti-Palin. In fact, my gut tells me that Hillary attacks will enhance Palin's standing among the relevant group. Just guessing at this point.

Whoops, I see Althouse was ahead of me with her pic. I never saw the new version of "Stepford Wives" with Nicole Kidman. I saw the old 70s one with Katherine Ross (the O-club in Kuwait City had a huge library of old videos, nothing new)

I hope Hillary tells 'team Obama' to stick it where the sun don't shine.

Nervy little whiny bastards... She's not good enough for the VP position on the ticket and they basically kicked Hillary to the curb and NOW they want to have come pull their nuts out of the fire.?? I don't think so!!!

The headline "Obama Camp Turns to Clinton to Counter Palin" actually makes Obama look smaller - no longer is he making decisions, but his camp is doing it for him. A better headline would have been "Obama Turns to Clinton to Counter Palin." It makes Obama look forceful.

But a line in the story shows that at the very least the reporters at the NYT don't get it, and potentially neither does Obama.

With the McCain-Palin team courting undecided female voters....

McCain-Palin would, of course, love to pick up such voters. But Palin is aimed specifically at the blue collar voters of either sex. She can relate to those people ("What do you mean, 'Those people?'" What do YOU mean, 'Those people?'"), and the other three candidates can't. Hillary obviously connected with those folks too.

In the article Mike McCurry almost gets it. He says, “What McCain has done with Governor Palin’s nomination is aim right at a demographic that Obama needs to address quickly: noncollege-educated women. They need to maximize Biden’s ability to reach out to them, but at the end of the day, it is Obama who has to get that very, very critical group.”

There's only two problems with McCurry's comment. First "noncollege-educated women" may be precise, but it sounds demeaning - too close to "non-educated women". Blue collar sounds much better. Second, Palin appeals to blue collar men, too - she's bad-assed.

I should add that I have nothing against childless closeted lesbians. Some of my best friends are childless closeted lesbians. I'm just thinking of how the image of Napolitano mannishly dumping on Palin will play politically. I think it will play badly.

Come to think of it, I never read about Obama doing anything with regard to his campaign. It's always "strategists" or "staffers" or simply "The Obama Campaign". Maybe that's just the tradition with political campaigns. Brand Obama is a product that The Obama Campaign, Inc. is selling.

Last night I saw some of the infomercial on Cindy McCain and part of her speech. In her passage through life she has done a considerable number of good things. She is an admirable person, but I didn't make a connection. There is something distant and studied about her. Like Michelle she seems to be someone who has studied and learned the role rather than lived it....I don't think this is a politcal bias. I liked Tipper Gore as much as Laura Bush. But all of these women, including Theresa Heinz, have more life and spontaneity than Hillary. Hillary is absolutely the wrong choice to campaign against Sarah. Sarah makes one think that life is fun, and there are lots of good things to eat. Not the impression that Hillary gives.

Conservatives are upset about this because they believe that all programmed fembots should share their views. The existence of liberal programmed fembots completely undermines their worldview, and reveals the deep disdain with which they regard programmed fembots.

So let me get this straight. Obama is going to hide behind a bunch of women's skirts. Isn't that special?

It seems to me that for a man to vote for this girly-boy, he would have to leave his manhood at the door. And what kind of real woman would vote for a man, charged to protect her as C-i-C, who needs to cower behind her skirts? I don't get it at all.

I like the idea of sending the childless closet lesbian Napolitano out to dump on Sarah Palin.

Will you guys please make up your minds? When you're talking about Obama you chuckle about lack of substance. When you're talking about Palin, you can't get to substance to save your life. She's buff! She has a hunky son and glamorous daughter!

We're reached the part of this campaign where I need to shove a finger down my throat and purge.

Yes. Much better to shore up their old tactics of registering illegal and nonexistent voters (ACORN ...the community organizers!), slashing Republican tires on election day, and bussing ex-cons to the polls for the mere price of a fix.

In the article Mike McCurry almost gets it. He says, “What McCain has done with Governor Palin’s nomination is aim right at a demographic that Obama needs to address quickly: noncollege-educated women. They need to maximize Biden’s ability to reach out to them, but at the end of the day, it is Obama who has to get that very, very critical group.”

I disagree here to some extent. These women are just the more visible portion of the key demographic. They also need to attract more of their menfolk too. Both are the demographic that Biden was presumably brought in to court. But Palin is esp. dangerous here.

The demographic is the blue collar Reagan Democrat of primarily the heartland, running from PA through Ohio, into the South and the Midwest. Palin comes in with values, a rifle (see that clip of her firing an M4 in Kuwait?), and a husband with an active union card (apparently Steel Workers, which should play esp. well in places like Pittsburgh, Wheeling, etc.)

Biden is likely to have problems with her there, and I would suspect that sending Obama into these areas will just drive those voters to McCain.

They may be right that the women there are more up for grabs than the men, but pushing more of the men into the McCain camp isn't going to help carry those critical states.

Obama had the opportunity to pick someone for VP who was by most accounts well qualified for the job, vetted by 18 million members of his own party, relatively free of new scandals (with all skeletons exposed during the Clinton presidency), and with great potential to unify the party.

And on top of that she was a woman. That is, disregarding her gender she was a good pick---but the gender is a bonus; a huge one.

Had she been picked out of the gate, there would be no Palin, and the Dems would have this election locked up. Truly, I say this as someone who would not have liked that outcome at all.

But he didn't do that. And the more these fembots are deployed, the more opportunity McCain and Palin have to emphasize that. Sure, it's nice that these women support Obama, but when it really counted, why did he turn down the most qualified person for the job... that just so happened to be a woman?

Are we talking about McCain or Obama? If you can argue that Palin is more qualified than Pawlenty, Huckabee, or Romney, I'd like to hear it.

I'm not arguing that any of those three guys would have been a better pick than Palin, but by objective measures of experience, can you argue that they are less qualified than Palin?

If you believe that, had Obama picked Clinton, the GOP talking heads and their media allies would be praising Obama for picking the most qualified person for the job, you're living in some sort of fantasy world.

When you're talking about Palin, you can't get to substance to save your life. She's buff! She has a hunky son and glamorous daughter!

I beg to differ. She has more accomplishments as a mayor and governor than Obama has being a community organizer and senator. That's been touted time and again. The fact that she's buff and hot is simply a bonus.

By all means go after her. I'm pretty confident that she'll prove more resilient than you might imagine.

I wonder how many of you now who criticize Obama for not picking Clinton would have been so effusive in your praise of this path not taken. How many of you would have avoided questioning her record (or “attacking” as you style the questions Palin has received) out of concern for appearing sexist? How many would not be making “cankle” or “pantsuit” jokes? Or “blowjob” jokes? Excuse me if your high-minded “advice” for Obama doesn’t strike us as disingenuous.

How fucking dare the Dems to actually CAMPAIGN against Palin!!!! It's all an antifeminist slur! LEAVE PALIN ALOOOOOOOONE!!!

It's cute that Palin goes out in front of crowds and lies through her teeth saying "Obama/Biden attacked my family!" after she drags her pregnant teen daughter on the world stage and passes around the retarded baby in front of the cameras. As in "criticize me, you're criticizing them!

You're completely mistaken, trevor - we're not praising the path of Hillary as VP because we like Hillary (at least I am not), but because it was objectively the smart move, something the GOP would not have been able to defeat. I'm bemused that Team O! would do something so dumb, and set themselves up to lose the election. Mind you, I'm happy about all this.

If you believe that, had Obama picked Clinton, the GOP talking heads and their media allies would be praising Obama for picking the most qualified person for the job, you're living in some sort of fantasy world.

You guys don't get it.

Set aside your partisanship and think strategically.

Who is the one person who could have instantly unified the Democrat party? There is only one person who could have done that...second place finisher Hillary Clinton.

Who was the one person Republicans feared most in the 2008 general election? Hillary. Why? Because she connects with blue collar swing voters and she is a known quantity with all of her baggage previously aired.

In other words, not much new to campaign against.

Look, we don't like Obama or Clinton, and we're not going to "praise them," but that doesn't prevent us from sitting back, looking at the big picture, and realizing that Hillary on the ticket would have been very bad news for our side.

Now, looking at the GOP ticket, it was obvious that McCain is not well loved within the GOP base. Who could McCain tap as VP that would help win over voters who are not his natural supporters?

Pawlenty? Giuliani? Romney? Huckabee? Lieberman?

None of those guys have widespread appeal among the GOP base. In other words, none of them could do what McCain needed to do.

Are they more experienced than Palin? Sure, but McCain didn't need to balance the ticket with experience like Obama did because McCain has the experience. McCain needed a running mate that would fire up and connect with and secure the support of the traditional GOP base.

Given those requirements, Palin is the best candidate for the job. The fact she is a smoking hot mom who knows how to hunt and field dress moose, well, that's just a huge bonus for our side.

Pogo, so you have nothing to say about the whining and carping from GOP supporters when Democrats actually campaign against their opponent? Nice try, changing the subject. I can't help but recall a few conservative commenters here, don't know if you were among them, a week or so back, preparing the "the Dems will say we cheated" if McCain wins line. And now you've picked it up in return!

Weakness! Lameness!

But Palin is hot, so it doesn't matter. And she's a mom. And McCain's a POW, I heard.

"the smart move, something the GOP would not have been able to defeat"

So smart that you all would have just packed up your kits and gone home, right? We'd have never heard about Tuzla or Whitewater or that guy she supposedly had killed.

It's very arguable that Clinton would have actually helped Obama. As others have noted above, he'd have been savaged as a puppet. The Bush to Hillary's Cheney.

Obama picked someone that may or may not have made campaigning more difficult but it's hard to argue that he picked someone he feels will make governing more difficult than Hillary would have.

He took a long view. McCain, on the other hand, appears to have only been looking for a quick bounce after the convention. How exactly will Palin help McCain govern? Her connections to oil lobbyists? It's safe to say he already had lines of communication set up with them.

Obama picked someone that may or may not have made campaigning more difficult but it's hard to argue that he picked someone he feels will make governing more difficult than Hillary would have.

You don't get to govern unless you win and Hillary would have made winning easier.

Would she have been a pain in the butt in the White House? Undoubtedly, but wouldn't that be a far better problem to have rather than trying to keep your party together because half the voters wanted someone else who was snubbed in the VP selection process?

Campaigns are about winning and Obama could have made it easier on himself by selecting Hillary.

In the absence of the effect that Palin has had, and in the reasonable expectation that the McCain VP choice would be a neutral, at best, selection, choosing Hillary would have come with some real risks, that Obama felt safe in avoiding.

Yeah it might have worked out fine and he would have sailed to victory, but there's a no more polarizing figure in American politics, by a long shot, than HRC. What we do know of him is he's not a big risk taker.

Are we talking about McCain or Obama? If you can argue that Palin is more qualified than Pawlenty, Huckabee, or Romney, I'd like to hear it.

I believe that the question of "most qualified" is a loser for the Dems because it pits the Dem Presidential pick against the Rep VP pick.

But that's actually not the argument I'm making, Peter. What I'm saying is that Obama's failure to pick Hillary opened up an incredible opportunity for the Republicans they would not have had otherwise.

I have no trouble conceding that Palin was chosen in part to capitalize on the political circumstances of the moment. So was Biden, who as clearly chosen to help deflect criticism of foreign policy inexperience. For that matter, just about any VP pick is a compensation pick: whether it is to counter a perceived weakness at the top of the ticket, or to appeal to a particular state, region, or demographic, etc.

That may sound cynical, but I don't believe it is. When you get right down to it, the only qualification that matters is the ability to garner votes. Even Paul Begala agrees with me on this, when he says that the reason Obama's inexperience isn't an issue is that he's had 18 months on the campaign trail for people to vet him, and decide they could vote for him anyway. In other words, as far as Begala is concerned, his primary qualification for office is that he won the primary.

I'm not arguing that any of those three guys would have been a better pick than Palin, but by objective measures of experience, can you argue that they are less qualified than Palin?

Well of course I could. It depends on what you decide is your criteria for "qualification". If the criteria is "most likely to advance the chances of victory" then I think Huckabee (Bible-thumper!) and Pawlenty (yawn!) are way underqualified, and Romney (wonk) is a wash at best.

If you believe that, had Obama picked Clinton, the GOP talking heads and their media allies would be praising Obama for picking the most qualified person for the job, you're living in some sort of fantasy world.

I'm not living in that fantasy world at all. No matter who Obama picked, the GOP was going to be attacking. But I honestly believe that the best ticket for the Dems, in terms of the only metric that really matters---the likelihood of victory---was Obama/Clinton.

So smart that you all would have just packed up your kits and gone home, right? We'd have never heard about Tuzla or Whitewater or that guy she supposedly had killed.

Of course the GOP would have done its best to win, no matter who Obama picked. And certainly, those are the kind of attacks they might employ. I just don't think they would have worked. For one thing, they've been done; most people have made their mind up about them. And for another thing, Obama would still be the primary focus of most voters; Hillary would be there to fill in his gaps. Her weaknesses are less important because she's second fiddle.

He took a long view.

As someone else pointed out, if he doesn't win, the long view is worthless. The proper "length" of view is the one squarely focused on the first Tuesday in November. That's it. Don't kid yourself---you can be darn sure that's the focus that Obama and his handlers had. I just think they calculated wrong, at least in hindsight.

McCain, on the other hand, appears to have only been looking for a quick bounce after the convention.

Again, I think this is incorrect. History shows what can happen to a post-convention bounce. Remember Dukakis? McCain did not pick a candidate to get him to September 5, he picked one to get him to November 4.

In both cases, we might disagree with the particular choice they made. In fact, according to Rasmussen, more people approve of McCain's choice than Obama's. But what I think we have to concede is that they both want to win, and have made a choice they feel best advances that objective.

It seems like you argue that Palin could not have been chosen by McCain if Hillary had been chosen by Obama. I don't see why Hillary takes Palin off the table. McCain is selling her, sort of, as an agent of change. Hillary on the ticket even moreso would have meant more of the same.

As I listened to the re-hash of last night, I thought of another reason I could vote for McCain. He seems to be fairly moderate on many things I agree with -- and if he runs and loses, what does that do to the more moderate wing of the Republican Party? Let's face it, the Bush-type voters aren't really gung-ho for McCain. Would a McCain loss be the death knell for Republican Moderates -- and would it mean, finally, that the Republican party would be for the Religious Right (or someone who can successfully talk to them) only? And the Republican Right has a very sorry track record on fiscal/economic policies.

So my vote for McCain could be construed as a vote against a Democratic lock on the Executive and Legislative Branch, or a vote so that the Republican Party will maintain its viability. Or maybe palatability to me in the future is a better way to put it.

You saw how feral McCain's supporters got over the weekend. No way any man would want to criticize Mrs. Palin. Best to send another lipsticked pitbull.

Would HRC have accepted the nomination? Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven, would be her take, I believe. She was all set for Obama to lose so she could run in 2012. That's why she made that poisonous "Senator McCain has..., ... and my opponent has a speech he made..." commercial. Luckily for McCain, Reagan's 11th Commandment governs Republicans.

Hillary's biggest weakness is her biggest strength -- Bill. Very difficult to see how Obama could win with that much baggage. And Hillary didn't become the shot and beer gal till the end of her campaign. The GOP can counter that with her years as corporate lawyer for Wal-Mart.

It seems like you argue that Palin could not have been chosen by McCain if Hillary had been chosen by Obama. I don't see why Hillary takes Palin off the table. McCain is selling her, sort of, as an agent of change. Hillary on the ticket even moreso would have meant more of the same.

Biden is really more of the same. Clinton hasn't been in office as long. And I do think you can spin her gender as part of the "change". Pelosi sure tried. Regardless, McCain had the luxury of waiting for Obama's pick before he made his. I am certain that part of the calculation was that Palin would appeal to disaffected Hillary voters more than a more "traditional" VP pick. I honestly don't think it was the only consideration but I think it was a real one.

As I listened to the re-hash of last night, I thought of another reason I could vote for McCain. He seems to be fairly moderate on many things I agree with -- and if he runs and loses, what does that do to the more moderate wing of the Republican Party?

Interesting thought. Clearly you don't think like LoafingOaf :) Some of the grumbling I've heard on conservative blogs is that the RNC did not spend much time attacking the Democratic congress that much. I wonder if there was any calculation at all by the Republicans that doing so would lessen McCain's appeal to Dems and independents.

I don't agree that he's still in such a moderate pose these days. I don’t claim to know what you agree with, MadMan, but you raise an interesting question for me. What if the tacks McCain has made to the right over the last 4 to 6 years (support for Bush’s tax cuts, immigration, anti-choice, anti-science pro-lobbyist, pro-fundie) in order to gain favor with the base were reversed after taking office?

That is, what if McCain 2009 could re-transform himself into the McCain of 2000? I would have voted for him then, and if I could be assured that that transformation could take place, I’d have to take another look at my decision now.

But I don’t think that reverse-reversal is possible given the current platform. At any rate, his choice of Palin would still be a deal-breaker for me. She’s W in a dress, from what I've seen so far. Positioning her for an easier run at 2012 or 2016 is a bad idea.

"I am certain that part of the calculation was that Palin would appeal to disaffected Hillary voters more than a more "traditional" VP pick."

I haven't seen too many people actually admit this. This is one reason why so many people were incensed by the pick. Most Hillary voters disagree with Palin's positions however pleased they are that a woman was chosen. To assume they'd immediately switch parties is pretty condescending.

Some of the grumbling I've heard on conservative blogs is that the RNC did not spend much time attacking the Democratic congress that much.

I think its fair to say the only reasonable chance fot the RNC this year is to keep the White House. Congress is a much more difficult thing to change, starting with the very high probability of re-election for incumbents.

MadisonMan, I thought that was interesting, but McCain has never struck me as someone who had a problem being social conservative. His deal seemed to be the willingness to compromise with Democrats and pick fights with his own party over fiscal matters (tax cuts and earmarks), immigration, and the conduct of the war (which he turned out to be right on).

On social issues there really isn't a lot of daylight between him and Bush. McCain's actually quite a bit to the right of Bush on fiscal matters (Bush is a democrat lite, part of his problem).

McCain's willing to work with the other side on some issues, but I have no idea where the idea that he's moderate has come from.

It's cute that Palin goes out in front of crowds and lies through her teeth saying "Obama/Biden attacked my family!" after she drags her pregnant teen daughter on the world stage and passes around the retarded baby in front of the cameras.

You have just proved the point that she was attacked. You agree with the attack and you are propagating the attack.

This is one reason why so many people were incensed by the pick. Most Hillary voters disagree with Palin's positions however pleased they are that a woman was chosen. To assume they'd immediately switch parties is pretty condescending.

It's only condescending to those Hillary voters who weren't going to switch anyway. But there is clearly a subset of Hillary voters who were at least willing to consider McCain. I would be interesting to see someone's internal poll numbers as to how large that group might be.

On a slightly less cynical note I think there is a certain value in Palin's pick in that it helps reshape the public's notion of what a "good" female candidate can be. Palin has the potential to lend credibility to the idea of a "conservative feminist."

It's cute that Palin goes out in front of crowds and lies through her teeth saying "Obama/Biden attacked my family!" after she drags her pregnant teen daughter on the world stage and passes around the retarded baby in front of the cameras. As in "criticize me, you're criticizing them!

First of all, "retarded"? I'll bet Trig grows up with more sense than you've got, you idiot.

Secondly, we have had a long history of balance in which the children of candidates are paraded around, and people generally seem to still innately understand that it's not appropriate to attack them. Or are you saying that Obama'skidsarefairgame, too?

Because there are a lot of people who are sick sick sick of Bill Clinton.

Well, I could certainly be wrong about the net value of Clinton to the ticket. What I can tell you is that I wouldn't have maxed out my donations to McCain's campaign had Obama picked her. I'd frankly not have considered it a wise gamble.

I would be interesting to see someone's internal poll numbers as to how large that group might be.

One of them would be my mum. A conservative Roman Catholic, and registered Independent who just wanted to see a woman in charge.

Media always tailored their pieces about Hillary's support coming from female Democrats and feminists. Since they thought those women were the ONLY ones who supported Hillary, they now make the fallacy that those women are in play now for McCain.

But no, all kinds of women supported Hillary, as my mother exemplifies. Some will jump ship to McCain. She has.

Oops, sorry mcg. I wanted to PIMF my earlier post. It makes you look like Kreskin though, to answer what was not yet posted. ;)

My mother in law is ecstatic about Palin. She was actually going to vote for Edwards in the primary. I don't know if she did, but I encouraged her to vote for Clinton instead.

Very good. A Christian evangelical neighbour of mine, a very personally conservative lady who has never married and is at home on Fridays instead of trying to get a date (she's loaded), was going for Edwards too. Failing him, Huckabee.

But she is over the moon about Palin now, and apparently so are her congregants.

And let me say that my argument for Clinton was not meant to be strategic---i.e., who would be most likely to lose in the general. I told her quite honestly that I thought the Dems were likely to win, and that if so, I wanted it to be Hillary---the toughest of the frontrunners.

Victoria said:Media always tailored their pieces about Hillary's support coming from female Democrats and feminists. Since they thought those women were the ONLY ones who supported Hillary, they now make the fallacy that those women are in play now for McCain. . . . But no, all kinds of women supported Hillary, as my mother exemplifies. Some will jump ship to McCain. She has.

This exactly corresponds with my observation. Oversimplifying somewhat, I think there are Hillary devotees (policy-based) and Hillary "affinity" voters (gender-based). The devotees are not in play, and I would be surprised if anyone on the Rep side thinks they are. But the affinity voters are definitely in play, and out in bitter clinger country (where I'm from) there are lots of them. Obama's task now is to convince the affinity voters that they're really devotees. I'm not sure it can be done (though I'm also not sure failure will be fatal).

Beth said..."Will you guys please make up your minds? When you're talking about Obama you chuckle about lack of substance. When you're talking about Palin, you can't get to substance to save your life."

Beth is absolutely right about this. They both lack substance. They both should do the honorable thing and withdraw. The Democrats blew it by nominating Obama. The Republicans cynically accepted Palin.

This should be a contest between McCain and Hillary, each with VP selections who have finished raising their children to the age of emancipation and who qualify to assume the job of President if necessary.

Oops, sorry mcg. I wanted to PIMF my earlier post. It makes you look like Kreskin though, to answer what was not yet posted. ;)

LOL Victoria. Funny.

I think the idea of a bunch of over the hill liberal feministitas trying to attack Palin is not so good for 'team O'. Palin comes from a background of everywoman. Middle class, family, working blue collar jobs. The surrogates are elitist urbanite snobs who do not connect with the voters who have basically fallen love with Palin and her story. The negative kick back on Obama will be worse than if he just did nothing much at all right now.

What memes can they attack her with,without appearing churlish or exposing their own weaknesses.

Family issues?

Retarded (as grarage so sweetly puts it) child?

Beat up on the pregnant daughter?

How can she possibly be a professional woman with children. She should stay home and take care of the kids, preferably barefoot?

She's hawt, so she must be some sort of brainless bimbo?

Yeah those things will play well with other women.

No experience? Um.. yeah try that with Obama's lack of experience

She hunts and knows how to shoot a gun? NRA member? That just elevates her in many people's eyes.

She's anti abortion? Got news for the talking heads, many people don't put this as the first issue and/or ambivilant. Pro choice people like myself who are anti abortion in terms of the government paying or being involved. while this might be the only issue where 'team O' can gain traction, it really won't be that big of a deal for the larger group of middle of the road moderates.

They both lack substance. They both should do the honorable thing and withdraw.

Ah, but Obama's at the top of the ticket, which, if the 1984 New York Times is to be believed, makes all the difference:

Where is it written that only senators are qualified to become President? Surely Ronald Reagan does not subscribe to that maxim. Or where is it written that mere representatives aren’t qualified, like Geraldine Ferraro of Queens? Representative Morris Udall, who lost New Hampshire to Jimmy Carter by a hair in 1976, must surely disagree. So must a longtime Michigan Congressman named Gerald Ford. Where is it written that governors and mayors, like Dianne Feinstein of San Francisco, are too local, too provincial? That didn’t stop Richard Nixon from picking Spiro Agnew, a suburban politician who became Governor of Maryland. Remember the main foreign affairs credential of Georgia’s Governor Carter: He was a member of the Trilateral Commission. Presidential candidates have always chosen their running mates for reasons of practical demography, not idealized democracy. One might even say demography is destiny: this candidate was chosen because he could deliver Texas, that one because he personified rectitude, that one because he appealed to the other wing of the party. On occasion, Americans find it necessary to rationalize this rough-and-ready process. What a splendid system, we say to ourselves, that takes little-known men, tests them in high office and permits them to grow into statesmen. This rationale may even be right, but then let it also be fair. Why shouldn’t a little-known woman have the same opportunity to grow? We may even be gradually elevating our standards for choosing Vice Presidential candidates. But that should be done fairly, also. Meanwhile, the indispensable credential for a Woman Who is the same as for a Man Who - one who helps the ticket.

Maybe the NYT was wrong in 1984. But it would certainly be amusing to see them try and reconcile their 1984 editorial with their Eagleton urges.

To be fair, the editors are doing a heck of a job hedging: they say it may be right that the VP position can be used to "grow" a statesman. The editorial was more a caution against using the experience argument as veiled gender discrimination.

The Obama camp is obviously in disarray after being blindsided by the Palin nomination and one can't help but ask WTF is President Obama going to do when Putin and Ahmadinejad blindside him? Call forward to Hillary?

He's failed his first test of leadership and proved that his touted executive experience of running a campaign isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

BTW-If Clinton is the Hilinator wouldn't that make Palin Sarah Connor?

Who is the woman who has "enough" foreign policy experience to run for President in the eyes of Palin's detractors?

Hillary doesn't. She was a devoted "corporate wife" - which involved a lot of travel - but she wasn't the one who made the policy. Obama did a fine job of pointing that out himself.

Albright or Rice? Actually they do, but they don't have the domestic experience that it takes be president.

So, what is the name of that all knowing, all experienced woman who is ready to be president?

(For the sake of arguement, ignore the question of what man fills those criteria.)

And if no one can name the woman, why not?

Why, after years of the woman's movement, don't we have that group of women with the leadership experience to be President?

Sure, you could name the Senator Hutchinson's or Feinstein's but do they really meet the criteria?

Sure, they have hung around a long time and, in some cases, done some good things, but are they really presidential material? Isn't choosing them as VP the same thing as choosing Bob Dole as your candidate? (picked mainly because of their longetivity and loyalty to party)

I am excited by the prospect of a Palin vice-presidency and I have no problem in saying that it is, in part, BECAUSE she is a woman.

Having a female VP/Pres. SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED a long time ago.

Palin also has relevant experience and, by all accounts a quick study. Others (men) do have relevant experience as well, but I doubt they will be as driven to study hard and do it quickly as she will in her position.

FLS - Hillary's biggest weakness is her biggest strength -- Bill. Very difficult to see how Obama could win with that much baggage.

I think the original charge that was glossed over by the media (the only area Hillary cut a break) - that Hillary was not qualified to be a leader just because she was married to one - is her biggest future liability. She lacked the management skills to resolve differences and organize her own campaign. She badly mismanaged money, and let policy differences between senior staff fester for months.

This is now well-known and seems to prove the contention that being 1st Lady of Arkansas and the White House means nothing. Hillary has had two shots at proving she is an executive leader - Hillarycare and her 2008 campaign - and melted down both times.

Whereas, say what you will about Obama and Team Axelrod...They hit almost every note perfectly.

My current fear is that if Obama is elected, he will nominate Hillary for the Supreme Court just to get rid of her as a rival. And she would be as bad or worse there than Sandra Day O'Connor (after all her fellow Senators, including McCain rubberstamped their "good friend's" becoming a Justice).

Hillary failed her Bar exam, and records show she did very little legal work - so she would be even more likely than O'Connor to act less like a Judge and more like a Super-Legislator who votes not on considered opinion of law, but on how she felt on an issue - then wrapped it all up in a vapid, opaque opinion to justify her judicial legislation.

Which of course Scalia eviscerated her for in dissent after dissent.

Hillary would be worse.

My solution is not to send out the counter fembots.

But on the significant chance that Obama will be President, to start sending Bill Clinton Jap porn. All the hentai, manga comix, tenacle sex, out there. Plus schoolgirl bukkakes. Chances are he would be highly interested.Then nominate Bill as Ambassador of Japan, Hillary as Ambassador to China. Get rid of both at one fell swoop.

And if they get tired of it, THEN send in the armed fembots to dispatch both of them with brassiere machineguns.

I don't see McCain having picked Palin if Obama picked Hillary! Why? Because then the match up is Hillary/Palin and Obama/McCain. And while Hillary is not as experienced as, for example McCain, she could make the case that she is better qualified than Palin. Add to that, that the two women would be fighting over the same demographic slice.

So, I see McCain having picked a male, and likely a governor. Romney, for one, could hold his own, or better, with Hillary on policy.

So, McCain had the tactical advantage of going second here. And that isn't all that surprising, since he seems to have been beating Obama from a military point of view for the last month or so.

I think that Obama found himself in a corner that he couldn't get out of with Hillary! The blue collar demographic she was pulling in towards the end is critical for him, which is one reason for Biden. But I just don't see Biden competing with Palin for this demographic, male or female - but with Palin, the females there are even more at risk.

Who really is going to be looking at those surrogates? The voters are going to be watching Obama, McCain, and Palin (and maybe Biden in a pinch, but I doubt that he will be that visible, since his long windedness doesn't lend itself to sound bites). The surrogates are going to look like what they are, surrogates, emphasizing that neither Obama nor Biden is capable of taking on Palin by themselves.

I had forgotten about Hillary! failing the bar exam the first time around. I am surprised that more wasn't made of that. Sure, it was likely that she was just too busy going after Nixon. But in the legal field, there is definitely a bias against those who fail the bar. Most of us don't, at least the first time around, and count ourselves smarter and harder working than those who fail their first state bar exam(s).

The only thing Hillary shares with Palin is a Chromosome. Palin is heads and above more compelling than Hillary. Hillary lives a life of legend in her own mind. Palin has actually accompished things. Hillary advocates, Palin does and practices.

Palin has more in common with the average American woman than Hillary ever will.

-The Palin-Pigeon is home to roost...Wait wait don't tell me...is that Russia? I would have thought it to be Siberia as Russia is a long way away from the Alaskan coast....ohhhh wait wait....Palin is just warm air rising...she can see for miles on a clear day.